About the topic
Archi.ru:
The topic was proposed by an initiative group (Andrey Bokov, Alexander Skokan, Nikita Tokarev, Narine Tyutcheva, Mikhail Khazanov, Vera Butko, Georgy Solopov and you). What arguments were put forward during the discussion?
Andrey Asadov:
- At the meetings of the initiative group, many different versions were put forward, but they all revolved around current trends in Russian architecture and society, as well as around the self-identification of Russian architecture. As a result, it was decided to combine both directions.
Nikita Asadov:
- The most interesting thing is that the final formulation was born during the discussion, initially our version of the name sounded like "Actual Heritage" - we suggested this year to focus entirely on the analysis of methods of turning the architectural heritage of Russian cities into a source of new ideas and a tool for the development of territories. In the new version, the topic sounds more broadly, and we will try to analyze the main stylistic trends in terms of their contribution to the formation of the identity of Russian architecture.
About the avant-garde
Again the vanguard? The topic has not yet exhausted itself?
H: In our opinion, the topic is just now becoming more and more relevant: firstly, this is associated with the centenary of the Russian Avant-garde, which flourished in 1914-1922, and secondly, a number of projects for the restoration of architectural monuments of this time have been launched, and even more are in waiting. Moreover, the architecture of the avant-garde still remains incomprehensible, and in the eyes of an ordinary citizen, the attitude towards it is rather negative. Rehabilitation of this temporary layer of architecture in the minds of society is one of the tasks facing the professional community today.
AND: We refer to avant-garde architecture as a purified, living tradition that has broken through the dense thickets of academic architecture, and in this sense, the topic is more relevant than ever - it's time to feel a new impulse from a living tradition that can inspire modern architecture.
Since this is the topic, let's talk in more detail about the avant-garde. Here in the manifesto it is written that you consider "… the Russian Avant-garde not as a revolution and a denial of values, but as a new reading of tradition …". Don't you find that if you look at the avant-garde in this way, more than half of its meaning is lost? Or else, in your manifesto, you write "by connecting the past with the present, we shape the future." The avant-garde honestly denied the past, and what will you do with this denial? In other words, don't you think that if you approach the avant-garde with such a conciliatory approach, it turns out to be some kind of teddy bear?
H: The Russian Avant-garde, like any outstanding phenomenon, has many meanings. The view of the Avant-garde as a revolutionary impulse destroying the past, especially convincing in the context of revolutionary transformations of the state and social structure, has become practically an official position. To a certain extent, this is a myth and a simplistic view of things. Just as we today call the entire architecture of the twenties constructivism, forgetting about the irreconcilable ideological confrontation between constructivists and functionalists, also the semantic content of the architecture of this time is reduced to the formula Vanguard = Revolution. In the context of the theme of the festival, we are primarily interested in the revolutionary breakdown of consciousness of the twenties, when pure original ideas began to emerge through the denial of the ossified language of architectural patterns, the carrier of which is tradition. In this sense, the underlying message of our project is that a living tradition is a bearer of meanings that contribute to the sustainable development of society. When it dies, it turns into mechanical repetition, a dummy imitating tradition, but essentially not filled with any values that are significant for the development of society. The purpose of the Avant-garde is to revive the Tradition, transferring its content into a new form, just as the translation of a text from an old language into a new one makes it understandable for contemporaries.
It should be understood that the masterpieces of the avant-garde of the twenties were created by the hands of people who went through a serious academic school, and were well aware of what they deny and why. This was not a search for something new through random search and the invention of bicycles - the architect had his own method, based on a personal position formulated in the manifesto. It was not so much the past that was denied, but that dead, empty form into which the profession, preoccupied for the most part with the problems of decorating tenement houses, had degenerated.
In our opinion, today, a hundred years later, the professional community is ready for an avant-garde view of the Avant-garde, or at least for alternative points of view on the content of that era. Our task is to give a new look at the meanings and significance of the architecture of the Russian Avant-garde, to make it understandable and relevant for modern society, thereby stimulating the emergence of new ideas and methods of creative comprehension of pressing problems.
Revitalizing a tradition sounds like a very charming task, but what exactly are you going to revive? And what, in this case, acts as an analogue of decorated apartment buildings - residential complexes and shopping centers?
AND: The living tradition of Russian architecture is all the best, distinctive, manifested in it at different historical stages, and left us as a legacy of unique monuments of its era. We want to revive precisely the life-building approach, the ability to form a meaningful space, subordinate to a given goal, showing the potential of a specific place and, at the same time, using centuries of experience in architectural excellence. Recently I heard a testament to an ancient Russian master, stunning in its laconicism and depth: "To cut is how measure and beauty will tell, and measure to a master is the length of a log, and height is a measure of beauty." Here is a living tradition for you, and it does not matter where to apply it - to apartment buildings or shopping centers.
In the light of the above, how would you formulate - what exactly in the vanguard do you consider identical? Again, if we remember that the avant-garde itself considered itself more of a cosmopolitan movement, a global movement, part of at least the Third International, and the color of Russian icons carried the same color to the world culture of the victorious proletariat? How does this internationalism of the prototype combine with the theme of local identity?
H: I think the beginning of the 20th century was, to a certain extent, a time of crisis of ideas in architecture, similar to what we have today. To find them, a lot had to be drawn from other sources - ancient Russian architecture (Neo-Russian style), natural forms (Modern), contemporary art (Avant-garde). Of course, as now, a lot came from global trends. But all this had the ultimate goal of expressing the values of one's own mentality, packed in a new shell. Even while solving the problems of building world communism, the avant-garde managed to remain Russian not only in geography, but also in character.
As for the ideological background of the architecture of that time, there is a suspicion that even Tatlin tried to "sell" his Tower to the Soviet government as a monument to the Third International, and did not at all compose it as such. It's just that at some point in history, the avant-garde in art came into resonance with the avant-garde of social reorganization, and became truly in demand, which gave such a powerful surge, the waves of which are still diverging.
What do you think a new trend can arise from? The old avant-garde, by definition, cannot be repeated, no matter how much you study it, it has already said everything - where will the new fresh come from?
AND: A new trend may arise as a response to the challenges of a society that has already stepped into a new, post-industrial era. The more relevant solutions modern architecture will offer for new social formats, new industries, new business and public spaces, the more avant-garde it will become in its essence.
About identity
The theme of Zodchestvo'2014 sounds like a continuation of the exhibition "Russian Identical", made by you at Zodchestvo 2012. How are they connected: there you were looking for identity in the buildings of the 2000s, now - in modern things? Or something else?
AND: Two years ago, together with leading critics, we collected a collective portrait of modern Russian architecture, and now we want to analyze why such a portrait turned out, how Stalin's skyscrapers, aesthetic minimalism and expressive author's objects can coexist in one cultural space, which inspires various trends in modern architecture of Russia. In other words, launch an impulse of self-identification.
Previously, the topic of identity was a little scary, but now it is starting to scare more and more. You are not going to look for an analogue of the “special Russian way” in architecture, are you? How would you define identity in architecture at all?
H: The point is that we consider identity outside the political context. In our opinion, this is a very important tool that can lead Russian architecture out of the systemic crisis, a source of new ideas that architects today do not know how to use, and are even afraid to use, risking being caught in "patriotic" sentiments.
AND: We see identity as the sum of three factors - Place, Time and the personality of the Creator. Identical architecture is able to reveal the potential of the place in which it is created, it is able to give an adequate response to its time, and it bears the imprint of the personality of its Creator, his vision of space. How would you like to see the identity of contemporary Russian architecture? Ideally, this is the very third way - a synthesis of the rational West and the irrational East, something organic and original, drawing inspiration from the living tradition of the past, but using the actual language of the present.
Actual means modern, that is, what has appeared now, or should it be not only modern, but also relevant - then what are the criteria for relevance?
H: Very little of the modern can be called relevant. Often, ideas formulated in the past become more relevant today than buildings erected according to modern projects. In my opinion, the main criterion of relevance is the ability to solve the problems of modern society and contribute to its development.
How will the Topical SA diploma be awarded?
H: This will be the choice of the jury, which will include members of the expert council and invited experts with weight in the professional community.
"Pavilion Crimea" is this your idea or whose?
H: This is partly our answer to the current topic of the year, which would be strange to ignore. In it, we want to translate the discourse from political to professional, draw attention to the value of the architectural heritage of Crimea, and encourage the professional community to participate in solving issues within their competence, instead of wasting energy on fruitless political discussions. By the way, the exhibition that we are planning to show was prepared by the curators at a time when the peninsula was part of Ukraine.
How will your architecture be radically different from the rest?
H: We would like to focus on the semantic part of the festival, expanding it through a number of special exhibition projects that reveal the general theme of the festival.
AND: We want to try to instill in Architecture the ability to set the vector for the development of Russian architecture, at least on a yearly basis, until the next festival. The impulse given at the festival in Moscow should then spread throughout the year to other cities, forming a stable discourse, and when it is fully assimilated, Moscow sends the next impulse for the next stage. We already have thoughts on the next impulses that should be launched into the professional environment after it “identifies” itself. How much it will be possible - time will tell.
What kind of special projects are these and what impulse of the current one would you call the main, decisive and necessary to germinate?
AND: For now, we will not reveal specific special projects, but in general their idea is to show how the “living tradition” looked at different historical stages, and what meanings it can give to modern architecture. There may be two impulses this year - to give the heritage relevance, the ability to become a source of development of territories, and to modern architecture - an identity that can bring it to the rank of heritage in the future.
You are brothers, but you work separately more often. Architecture'2014 is your first joint project? Why did you decide to unite now?
H: This is our first joint project of this magnitude. Before that, we did several exhibition projects, including at the Zodchestvo festival in 2012. But what we are doing now requires the consolidation of the efforts of many more people. In our opinion, the festival has great potential as a discussion platform not only for discussing urgent problems, but also as a tool for promoting new strategic ideas that can give new meanings to society through architecture, thereby increasing the status of the profession as a whole.
